After all what do think how high the rates would be if every reckless, unlawful and stupid behaviour was insured?
Well, probably no different. There is a strong disincentive to recklessness in aircraft - even if you are insured, insurance is cold comfort if you're dead or smashed up in hospital. So routine and deliberate recklessness is pretty rare.
Talking about the fear of consequences thing - one thing I've noted that is strongly different between the US and UK is that in the US you're probably orders of magnitude more likely to get sued as an aviation business, but the fear of getting sued is pretty low. Here, though the fear of being sued is much higher despite its lower apparent probability. I've never had to wear a yellow jacket on any US airfield, but probably a good half of UK airfields insist on it. And if you want to use a UK airfield outside of normal opening hours you have to sign a huge disclaimer form, which you never do in the US.
what next, of course i was talking about a xwind landing within the limits. But the: flying privately you do not have to follow the manufacturer's xwind limit, and therefore it would be hard to prove gross negligence.
Does your aircraft actually mention a "limit" (presumably in the Limitations section) or does it just list a demonstrated crosswind? I think the latter....
The PA-18 POH has no mention of a demonstrated crosswind performance, and with a Vs of 42 mph the minimum for airworthiness would be 8mph. However, if there were a crosswind of 25-30 knots, as per above, the landing groundspeed would be around 15 mph into wind. In practice the real limitation is taxiing in a strong wind.
...follow up, today the PA18-95 had a short trip from A'field to Spanhoe. Quite sporting winds, but as per above both take off and landing were made into wind with minimal ground runs. Runways were 27 in both cases, and prevailing wind 320/20. Taxying speed around 1 mph.